Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters
We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of ophthalmology 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 651 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 645 |
container_title | American journal of ophthalmology |
container_volume | 113 |
creator | Wheeler, Noel C. Morantes, Connie M. Kristensen, Ronald M. Pettit, Thomas H. Lee, David A. |
description | We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72981407</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002939414747889</els_id><sourcerecordid>72981407</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-61a7b62e700e78c2b10bba8a34a459a285530ddde7ed209251f45a60a29c25c53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLAzEQgIMotVZ_QmEPInpYnWSTTXISKb6goGg9h2x2lkZ2u5pshf57tw_q0dMwM988-AgZU7imQPObdwBgqc40v6T8SnKpVKoPyJAqqVOqND0kwz1yTE5i_OzTvAcHZECFVlqIIRFvWHtb-Np3q2TSYlV553HRxaStktk8IPbVsEBbJ6_WzVcNdhjiKTmqbB3xbBdH5OPhfjZ5Sqcvj8-Tu2nqMgldmlMri5yhBECpHCsoFIVVNuOWC22ZEiKDsixRYslAM0ErLmwOlmnHhBPZiFxs936F9nuJsTONjw7r2i6wXUYjmVaUg-xBsQVdaGMMWJmv4BsbVoaCWesyG11m7cJQbja6-mxExrsDy6LB8m9q66fvn-_6NjpbV8EunI97TPAcNKyx2y2GvYwfj8HEtUWHpQ_oOlO2_p9HfgFeWoVz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72981407</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Wheeler, Noel C. ; Morantes, Connie M. ; Kristensen, Ronald M. ; Pettit, Thomas H. ; Lee, David A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Noel C. ; Morantes, Connie M. ; Kristensen, Ronald M. ; Pettit, Thomas H. ; Lee, David A.</creatorcontrib><description>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9394</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1891</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1598955</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOPAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anthropometry - instrumentation ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cornea - anatomy & histology ; Cornea - diagnostic imaging ; Female ; Humans ; Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography - instrumentation</subject><ispartof>American journal of ophthalmology, 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651</ispartof><rights>1992 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>1992 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-61a7b62e700e78c2b10bba8a34a459a285530ddde7ed209251f45a60a29c25c53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-61a7b62e700e78c2b10bba8a34a459a285530ddde7ed209251f45a60a29c25c53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=5460905$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1598955$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Noel C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morantes, Connie M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristensen, Ronald M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettit, Thomas H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, David A.</creatorcontrib><title>Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters</title><title>American journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anthropometry - instrumentation</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cornea - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Cornea - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - instrumentation</subject><issn>0002-9394</issn><issn>1879-1891</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLAzEQgIMotVZ_QmEPInpYnWSTTXISKb6goGg9h2x2lkZ2u5pshf57tw_q0dMwM988-AgZU7imQPObdwBgqc40v6T8SnKpVKoPyJAqqVOqND0kwz1yTE5i_OzTvAcHZECFVlqIIRFvWHtb-Np3q2TSYlV553HRxaStktk8IPbVsEBbJ6_WzVcNdhjiKTmqbB3xbBdH5OPhfjZ5Sqcvj8-Tu2nqMgldmlMri5yhBECpHCsoFIVVNuOWC22ZEiKDsixRYslAM0ErLmwOlmnHhBPZiFxs936F9nuJsTONjw7r2i6wXUYjmVaUg-xBsQVdaGMMWJmv4BsbVoaCWesyG11m7cJQbja6-mxExrsDy6LB8m9q66fvn-_6NjpbV8EunI97TPAcNKyx2y2GvYwfj8HEtUWHpQ_oOlO2_p9HfgFeWoVz</recordid><startdate>199206</startdate><enddate>199206</enddate><creator>Wheeler, Noel C.</creator><creator>Morantes, Connie M.</creator><creator>Kristensen, Ronald M.</creator><creator>Pettit, Thomas H.</creator><creator>Lee, David A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199206</creationdate><title>Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters</title><author>Wheeler, Noel C. ; Morantes, Connie M. ; Kristensen, Ronald M. ; Pettit, Thomas H. ; Lee, David A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-61a7b62e700e78c2b10bba8a34a459a285530ddde7ed209251f45a60a29c25c53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anthropometry - instrumentation</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cornea - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Cornea - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - instrumentation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Noel C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morantes, Connie M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristensen, Ronald M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettit, Thomas H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, David A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wheeler, Noel C.</au><au>Morantes, Connie M.</au><au>Kristensen, Ronald M.</au><au>Pettit, Thomas H.</au><au>Lee, David A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters</atitle><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>1992-06</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>113</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>645</spage><epage>651</epage><pages>645-651</pages><issn>0002-9394</issn><eissn>1879-1891</eissn><coden>AJOPAA</coden><abstract>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>1598955</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9394 |
ispartof | American journal of ophthalmology, 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651 |
issn | 0002-9394 1879-1891 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72981407 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Adult Anthropometry - instrumentation Biological and medical sciences Cornea - anatomy & histology Cornea - diagnostic imaging Female Humans Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Observer Variation Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasonography - instrumentation |
title | Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T13%3A03%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reliability%20Coefficients%20of%20Three%20Corneal%20Pachymeters&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Wheeler,%20Noel%20C.&rft.date=1992-06&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=645&rft.epage=651&rft.pages=645-651&rft.issn=0002-9394&rft.eissn=1879-1891&rft.coden=AJOPAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72981407%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72981407&rft_id=info:pmid/1598955&rft_els_id=S0002939414747889&rfr_iscdi=true |